Pregnancy...

simply beautiful! it is looked like a goddess who is a pregnant and the women are practically worship her.

 

good job and loved it...

i wonder how to use the light source, i tried using a regular 40 or 25 W tongestan bolb but the beam of light is to wide, how do you make the beam of light nerow enough to stay behind the camera?

according to your artical it does'nt take any spacial equipment

I have never had the urge to comment on any of the POWs until now... This photo (like the rest of your work) is truly exceptional, worthy of my first 10/10 (are 12/12s available??). Beautiful and brilliant. A real testament to the fact that photography truly is art. Congratulations and thank you.

It's hard to be confident on stuff like this, isn't it? Much of the time, though, fact follows belief and simply pretending you are results in the confidence. Your images are so carefully defined!

 

I did read your article (thanks) and I'm still curious about a ballpark amount of time that you end up spending the bulb around. I undnerstand setting the shutter to bulb setting - just want to know how long you tend to leave it open for, as a starting point for my own exploration.

Its nice to see a few people around here with a since of taste. This site doesnt seem to be as interested in great photographs as they are cool special effect techniques. you dont go to MTV to find good music and you dont come here to see good photographs.

This is very interesting - has some of the qualities in posing, scene, lighting that I would expect to see in a renaissance painting by an old master - this really is 'woman as godhead'. Having just witnessed the birth of my son, I think the theme, and symbolic structure here is right on.

The comparison to Gericault's Medusa's raft is totally relevant and appropriate.

Mark, you forgot one of the most important element which is the pyramidal (triangular) structure of which Gericault was particularly fond...The image below will clearly demonstrate my point. the same traced overlaying triangle was used.

/photodb/image-display?photo_id=915609&size=lg

P.S. This is not to suggest that Schildt copied or plagiarized Gericault's, of course, it is to show similarities in both compositions...

Regards and congratulations on a well executed POW.

WOW...

Photography is about time, among other things, and this is static, with no time feel. ... Their's no spontaneity. No serendipity. ... Photography is not painting, and photos that are "made" rather than "taken" ignore that which is unique and special about photography.

I agree with Dean on his definition about the strongness of photography, but not in the way it's stated, in the meaning that's the only valid approach to the way an image is created. How about still life shots? How about those pretty nudes, made in studios, with detailed care on light, film and poses? What about portraits? Some of them are spontaneous, but many succesful ones, NOT. Isn't valid the pre-production work after all? Isn't the eye of the photographer the most important tool to create a well thought, prepared, not "spontaneous", "made" shots?

I think that Emil's work is such a good work; he pushed the thing about "painting with light" far, far beyond what most of us could do or even imagine to do.

You're certainly correct. There is no one way to do anything, and what's a valid avenue of expression to the artist and audience is simply that. I mean, who am I anyway? It is what it is. Judging from the majority opinion here, I am wrong. I'm simply stating my personal reaction to this photo and what it indicates to me about photography vs painting. It's only my opinion, but what I believe nevertheless. For some, this defines photography as a real honest-to-gosh ART. For me it doesn't, whereas Cartier-Bresson, Friedlander, Eggleston, Evans etc, etc do. It's just not my thing, and I'm throwing that opinion into the mix. I do enjoy many of the photos in Emil's portfolio. He's a great photographer and this is a fine POW choice for what it is.

This seems to me a romanticized version of pregnancy. Romanticism seems to focus on a single or very small no. of aspects about a situtation and depict them in an exaggerated way. For example the image does not depict

morning sickness or any of the other real aspects of pregnancy...what the woman experiences. or even more importantly the fact that the human population is growing rapidly and the consequences of human overpopulation.

world population counter:

http://www.cnie.org/billion/

 

the image itself strikes me as a kind of duplication of the christ on the cross configuration more than any other arrangement (triangles or not).

 

nearly ANY image of young, nude females is going to excite males. witness the preponderance of male photographers, and the no. of females they photograph, and the great no. of males who purchase pictures of females. it seems to be that the preoccupation with the young, nude female

is genetically ingrained, and also an expression and function of patriarchy. an 'aesthetic' can be oppressive. the contemporary obsession with fake breasts seems to fit the patriarchal view of female as

entertainment object.

Dean: You are absolutely intitled to your opinion - I have no problems with that..What I do have a problem with is, that you (and many others...) seem to think, that I regard myself as an artist and that i regard my images as ART -WHICH I DON*T... its just pictures...

JAke:over population???? wow.. I am speechless,and I deeply apologize for that failure.. BUT: Where I live (Denmark) it has been - for years - NOT "comme il faut" to do what I do..for the reasons you mentioned..There are numerus books etc.of morningsick women - delivery that goes wrong or that just are difficult.. The idea to celebrate womanhood - pregnancy - life - is not in good tast theese days... Well - I chose to take the romantic, old fashioned way to make my picture.. and that's my way! I AM old-fashioned and very romantic..so be it...

Very nicely done. Not sure about the bright spot above her left hand though.

I think the black bikini the one lady is wearing is a bit distracting. I don't know about the outstretched arms of the pregnant woman as well, seems a bit overdone. Perhaps outstretched to encompass the other women would be better (ie: closer to them), so here it seems a bit too glorifying. Anyway, not bad, but really not that great in my opinion. Interesting concept though.

It seems that any comment in this forum is both a response to the work in question and a response to other comments. I'm sorry if I implied assumptions about where you personally were coming from with your own work. I was reacting in large part to other comments and interpretations about it, as regards the whole art photography thing. I guess in the long run that stuff doesn't really matter, and your comment here about just making pictures keeps things in perspective (no pun intended ;)). Indeed it helps me enjoy your work more without all the contrary art/historical baggage that I brought to it. Photography is richer for all its variety of approaches, whether they're all my cup of tea or not.

First of all, thanks to Maurice Depestre for demonstrating so clearly what I meant by the similarity in the way the "bodies get mixed together". The triangular similarity thing is even far more obvious than I had noticed...

Besides, I find very interesting what I read just above: "Perhaps outstretched to encompass the other women would be better (ie: closer to them), so here it seems a bit too glorifying."

First off, I would say, that I can only disagree with "would be better"... and I would rather say "would be different"... why ? Because it is each artist's prerogative to choose what is the MESSAGE he wants to convey - whether this is a conscious choice or not, by the way...

Yet, there was this idea that the picture is "too glorifying", which I would somehow associate with Emil's expression above - CELEBRATE pregnancy...Glorifying ? Celebrating ? Is that really what this picture is doing...? In a way yes, but is it really such a POSITIVE celebration ? I personally find that the theme of crucifixion isn't all that positive, and I see as much martyrdom in this image as real glorification. I would be glad to read a few other people's perception about this. And Emil, now much of a celebration do you think this really was ? What about the crucifixion, the dramatic poses of the models, which to me is more of a mixture of an enthusiastic and a saddened visions ?

Am I the only one seeing melancholia in here ? And who else reads human misery here as much as (if not more than) a real celebration ? And Emil, how do YOU read your own picture for this matter?

Now that I've spent a bit more time analyzing the lighting on this set, I just want to ask: wasn't there ANY other light source recorded here besides the light brush ? I ask mostly because of the high position of the light source on the pregnant woman and the second girl from bottom left... If this was PURE light brushing, I can't figure how these 2 persons could have been lit this way - so well and realistically... Any flash, or tungsten, or ceiling light recorded for this, besides the light painting technique ?

Dean: it's ok - I find it interesting, this discussion... as long as we knów, where we stand...

Marc: First a little background storie: I was here on a visit, when Rikke told me, that this was the day, when she was ment to deliver... WOW - then I must hurry.. and asked her and four(not three - sorry) students, if they wanted to participate.. I had no time to plan anything, and as I stated before, the cameras up here kept falling apart.. Except this old plastic polaorid camera... I didn't even know, wether I could use it to paint with light (the timing on it is automatic...turned out, that I could..) We ended up taking four pictures, and that was that...SO why did I do as I did? why where the arms in that direction? I must admit, that I don't know... I AM a son of a preast! so the cross isn't long away from me.. But I think I mostly thought of form - I thought, that it could be a nice sculpture....

Rikke almost fainted doing this picture!! I asked her why, and she replyed that she was overwhelmed by the greatness of the situation...In hindsight, I also see sadnes and doubt, but mostly I see admiration of women/womanhood - from young girls to the mother to be... She is older, and are protecting/blessing her yonger sisters...

The tecnical question: Well marc... ONLY my 25 watt bulp was used... I started standing on a chair in front of the girl on our right, to be able to reach high enough... then the backgroung, because of the arms ( if I waited too long painting the background, she would have moved her arms too much..) - then - after removing the chair ;-) I painted on the four girls... I think it took all in all about two minutes..not longer, maybe less..

i don't have a problem with the photo. in my opinion romanticism is dangerous because to me it can be like tunnel-vision. it tends to focus on fantasy and not reality. one of the famous illustrations of romanticism is the character of don quixote who after isolating himself with many romantic books on the fictional adventures of knights loses his grip on reality and becomes a romantic hero, at least in his own mind. i have heard that some countries have negative birth rates, but the overall the world human population is increasing. some believe all of our environmental problems stem from overpopulation. i'm not saying your photo should address overpopulation..i'm saying that romanticism can, and does distort reallity. but i guess the question is....what purpose does romanticism serve? to me romanticism seems often fraught with falsehoods.

Ohhh comments on my comments, well that's fine. Yes, better, as defined by me, and I won't go into details. I just saw a bit of a disconnection by the pregnant woman hovering over the others, as opposed to more of a connection, compositionally, such as the others gazing upwards perhaps! I feel this would have presented a stronger effect, whatever the effect might be as intentioned by the photographer, and of course the viewer. I think we're over-analyzing by connecting it to crucifixion, I mean we're talking about new life! Anyway, I guess that's up to interpretation. Why is the woman given most of the credit for new life, when it obviously takes two to bring it about as well? Hmn...

Wow, man, the picture of the week is totally cool. And thanks for pointing out those big red triangles, Maurice I see them in pictures everywhere now. I guess thats what makes great art. Even the picture on the side of my van (see above) has one!!

 

I also got to agree with jake richardson, even though I didnt understand most of what he was saying. Like you, jake, I get excited by pictures of nude young girls too. I dont know how that makes me patriotic but if it does, well there ya go. Im not ashamed to love my country.

 

Peace out

good catch jerry! though your triangle, if as big and red as mine, is a tad crooked.

 

My!!! quite a van, and a Cool name you got too...

Sorry, that's a black wrist band of some sort I was referring to.

Kitschy, but I would like to know how you get all those girls to take their clothes off for you?

Underexposure aside, the tension is wrong. It seems the longer one views the pic, the more attention is drawn to the "carrying" female. As mentioned above, pregnancy is no ROMANTIC issue; though I could challenge the former intellectuals and say " it is the 3rd world that bends the stats" - I won't. An average image to which we owe the member's skills. Well done, and good luck with the pregnancy ... oh, I mean POW.

 

Look around you, so many pregnant females, big issue over at photosig just now - as if 'twere something noble and novel to breed...glory, glory, glory, how we delight in the ordinary; going down is my opinion of the race we run, but humbly so as I run and I run.